If you’re engaged in discussions about the future of your community, there will certainly be times where opinions differ. If the issues you’re working through are close to home (like in a tiny democracy), the opinions of your neighbors will likely be held very strongly (see also: NIMBYism).
My neighborhood is 0.34 square miles. When our association board discusses issues, the stakes are relatively low respective to the City at-large. That said, it is almost a guarantee that everyone in the room will regularly feel the impact of whatever decisions we make – maybe even daily. This can easily build tension and raise the metaphorical temperature in the room.
In addition to leading with humility, the leaders of tiny democracies must become great deliberators. Notice I didn’t say great debaters. In conversations about the collective good, we should never be focused on “winning,” but rather finding the best option that benefits the most people and limits any negative outcomes as much as possible.
To guide good deliberation, it helps to clearly lay out not just the pros and cons but the pressures that are weighing on the group:
- When does this decision have to be made? Does it require a decision at all?
- What impact could our particular group have on this issue? Who else is involved?
- How does this decision or issue align with the community’s goals/desires?
- Have we raised this issue with other groups or members of the community?
- What is important, but hasn’t been brought up yet?
If it seems like these questions are designed to slow down the conversation, it’s because they are. In civic life, decisiveness isn’t always a virtue. When your primary interest is the collective good, it might take longer to find the right path forward and that’s okay. It’s also okay (and inevitable) that you’ll make mistakes. Being honest about what we could’ve done better in the past will make us better leaders, and shows our communities that we’re open to doing things differently.